Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 15469

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J), Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)
Raman Kumar Prajapat – Appellant
Versus
Commerce – Respondent
OA No. 748/2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shirke
For the Respondents: Walia

Candidates recommended from a Reserve List cannot be placed senior to candidates recommended from the Main List, irrespective of higher marks, as seniority is determined by the list of recommendation and the subsequent order of appointment to the cadre.

Headnote:(A) Seniority - Determination of - Candidates in Reserve/Waiting List versus Main List - Candidates from Reserve List, despite scoring higher marks, cannot be placed senior to candidates recommended in the Main List who joined service earlier - The date of recommendation and appointment determines inter se seniority; seniority cannot be assigned retrospectively if the candidate was not appointed at the relevant time. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 12)

Facts of the case:
The applicants were selected through an interview process for the post of Examiner of Trade Marks and Geographical Indications and joined service in 2017. Certain private respondents were later appointed from a Reserve/Waiting List. A dispute arose regarding the fixation of inter se seniority, with the respondents eventually publishing a seniority list placing Reserve List candidates above the original applicants. The applicants challenged these seniority lists.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal reiterated that Reserve List candidates cannot be ranked above Main List candidates who were appointed earlier. It held that guidelines for inter se seniority among Reserve List candidates do not entitle them to supersede Main List candidates. Consequently, the revised seniority lists were set aside and the respondents were directed to recast them.

Issues: Whether candidates from a Reserve List, having higher merit, can be placed higher in seniority than candidates from the Main List who were appointed earlier.

Ratio Decidendi: Seniority is governed by the list in which a candidate is recommended and the order of joining; higher merit in the Reserve List does not override the seniority of candidates already appointed from the Main List.

Result: Original Application allowed; seniority list set aside.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court discusses whether candidates in the Reserve List who scored more marks than Main List candidates can be ranked above those Main List candidates (!) (!) . - It cites Gujarat State Deputy Executive Engineers’ Association (supra) to hold that waiting/reserve list candidates cannot outrank Main List appointees in inter-se seniority (!) . - It references DoPT OM clarifications that inter-se seniority of Reserve List nominees will be fixed per consolidated merit, but notes these do not alter the relative seniority between Main List and Reserve List candidates (!) (!) . - It notes UPSC communications and Kerala High Court/D Delhi High Court positions rejecting seniority of Reserve List over Main List in similar contexts (!) (!) (!) . - The Tribunal’s earlier position that more-merit Reserve List candidates cannot outrank Main List appointees was upheld and seniority recast accordingly (!) . - The final direction is to recast the seniority list in terms of the Main List and Reserve List considerations, and to set aside the prior seniority to align with the judgment (!) . - The case concerns seniority fixation in the context of selected direct recruits via UPSC and subsequent Reserve List adjustments (!) (!) . - The judgment emphasizes that the date of recommendation/appointment and the Main List’s primacy governs seniority, not merely higher marks in Reserve List (!) (!) (!) . - The DoPT/O.M. guidance on inter-se seniority is limited to consolidation merit and does not authorize placing Reserve List candidates above Main List appointees (!) (!) .

What is the method for fixed inter-se seniority between candidates from the Main List and those from the Reserve List in UPSC/DoPT recruitments?

What is the controlling standard for ranking candidates in the presence of a Reserve List versus a Main List in recruitment, and can Reserve List candidates with higher marks be placed above Main List appointees?

What is the effect of consolidated merit and approved DoPT OM instructions on inter-se seniority between Reserve Panel nominees and Main List nominees?

Table of Content
1. procedural compliance for rehearing cases due to non-joinder of parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. background facts regarding recruitment and publication of seniority lists. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. reserve list candidates cannot supersede main list candidates in seniority. (Para 7 , 8 , 12)
4. arguments concerning merit-based ranking versus appointment date for seniority. (Para 9 , 10)
5. court order directing the recasting of the seniority list. (Para 11 , 13)

ORAL ORDER

Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

1. This O.A. has been reheard on account of the orders passed in M.A. No. 66/2025 and M.A. No. 65/2025 as private respondent nos. 6,7,8, 10 & 13 complained that they were not heard when this O.A. was heard and disposed of on 26th September, 2024.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the private respondents nos. 6,7,8,10 & 13. Learned counsel Shri Shirke made submissions for private respondent nos. 6,7,8,10 & 13 and learned counsel Shri Walia for original applicants.

3. Learned counsel Shri Shirke for applicants in M.A. No. 66/2025 (private respondent nos. 7,8,10 & 13) has made submissions for the applicants in M.A. No. 66/2025 (private respondent nos. 7,8,10 & 13) and also for the applicants in M.A. No. 65/2025 (private respondent no.6) on behalf of learned counsel Mr. Nagrani, learned counsel for the applicant in M.A. No. 65/2025. Learned counsel Mr. Priyaranjan Roy who is the advocate working with Mr. Nagrani is present in the Court. We have heard learned counsel Shri Shirke for private respondents and learned counsel Shri Walia for original applicants (respondents herein).

4. The case of the original applicants is that the advertisement no. 05/2016 was published for the post of Examiner of Trade Marks & Geographical Indications in the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion. The number of vacancies advertised were 58. The selection process was conducted by UPSC and the process of selection was by interview only. The applicants were selected and their names were recommended by UPSC in May, 2017. The names of the applicants appeared at serial no. 32 onwards in the list of recommended candidates. Accordingly, all the applicants joined as Examiner of Trade Marks and GI on 07th August, 2017.

5. It is further alleged that the respondents prepared Reverse / Waiting List on account of non-joining of some of the recommended candidates in which private respondents came to be recommended first and they joined duties between October, 2018 and February, 2019. They further alleged that the respondents have prepared Provisional Seniority list on 25th April, 2019. The names of the applicants appeared between serial no. 39 to serial no. 58. The names of the private respondents were appearing from serial no. 59 onwards. On 19th September, 2019, Final Seniority List was published. For the year 2020, Provisional Seniority List was published on 15th June, 2020.

6. According to the applicants, this was never finalized. Thereafter, on 20th January, 2021, another Provisional Seniority List was published. Till this date, the private respondents were shown junior to the applicants. On 03rd March, 2021, Final Seniority List was published and the private respondents were shown above the applicants in the said list. Some of the candidates in the Recommended / Main List made representations which came to be decided on 04th October, 2021. The contention of the applicants is that date of entry in the particular service or the date of substantive appointment should be the criteria for fixing the inter se seniority and the applicants appointed from the reserve / waitlisted panel be placed as per their date of appointment in the cadre did not find favour with the respondents. These two orders i.e. the order dated 03rd March, 2021 and 04th October, 2021 were challenged in this O.A.

7. After considering the arguments of the learned counsels, we

Click Here to Read the rest of this document